With the permission of the House, I wish to share my time with Deputy Ryan.
Private Members' Business. - An Post Viability Plan: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Currie on Tuesday, 11 June 1991:
That Dáil Éireann, being strongly of the belief that the viability plan of An Post has social and economic implications which are unacceptable, would damage the social fabric of rural life, increase the isolation of individuals and disadvantaged groups in both urban and rural areas, would have unacceptable consequences for the range and standard of postal services in that it would in particular close down more than 500 post offices and downgrade 23 company offices in provincial towns, make 1,500 staff redundant, and replace doorstep delivery with 200,000 roadside post boxes in urban and rural areas, demands that the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications use his powers under Section 110 of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983 to instruct An Post to withdraw its viability plan and provide an alternative in compliance with the social and household requirements of the 1983 Act.
Debate resumed on amendment No. a1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute "noting that
(a) at the initiative of the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, talks are now in progress between management and unions about the future of An Post,
(b) the predicted losses of An Post in 1992 will, without corrective action, be £14 million, and accumulated losses by end 1992 will be £31 million,
(c) the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications has appointed consultants recommended by the National Economic and Social Council (NESC), to carry out a socioeconomic study of the implications for rural communities of An Post's proposals in regard to sub-post offices and roadside letter boxes and also to consider proposing new sources of business for sub-post offices,
(d) An Post has deferred implementation of its proposals to regrade some of its own post offices until the Company has had full consultation with relevant bodies from the towns concerned and considered how their concerns may be accommodated within the Company's requirement to become financially viable,
(e) following a request from the Minister, the Board of An Post decided to rescind its decision to withdraw from the Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme, supports the Minister's efforts to have management and unions negotiate and agree proposals which will return the post office to at least break even as a matter of urgency.
— (Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications.)
Is that agreed? Agreed.
When speaking on this matter last evening I made reference to a number of issues including, for example, the ideological context in which the proposals had been brought forward. I also said that the plan proposed, which was described as a viability plan, made neither economic sense nor was it viable. What I meant by that was that it contained no coherent recognition of the resource of the company, that is, its manpower or womanpower involved in delivering the post.
I heard Deputies speak about another 1,500 people being added to the unemployment statistics, but that is not the end of the matter because what we have to address is the function of each of those persons. What is at stake is something very fundamental — the diminution of a social right and a citizen's right. I stressed last evening that every citizen of whatever age in no matter how remote a place was entitled to the from of communications that is the post but that is being changed. What is being said is that the company, who evolved from being a company with a social function to a commercial company, now require the implementation of this viability plan. However, there is no mandate from this House to do that. The Act which established the new company does not allow it.
I would like to make the following point. When the city council in Galway, of which I am chairman as Mayor of Galway and on which all parties are represented, discussed this issue, not one voice was raised against the proposal that the viability plan be rejected because people realised the importance of what was at stake. Let me say something else which is important. I have a connection with this problem. My sister who is in England worked as a postwoman until she began to suffer from arthritis. Do people around the country want to remember those who travelled over difficult road conditions and in all kinds of weather to deliver post? Would the planners, if they are interested in planning, look at the demographic statistics which show that the age profile is changing? This has to be looked at in the same way as the emigration statistics — more older people living alone. Why not take this network and immense social asset and use it as the basis from which to deliver other services such as caring and commercial services and so on? That argument has not been made.
What I have noted in the thinking behind the viability plan is a new breed of Irish people who want to unburden themselves of any kind of social responsibility if no immediate economic benefit is involved. Let me put it as I put it at the conference of the Communications Workers' Union. When the rail network was cut back older people were told they would get buses instead of trains but what happened was, in effect, that they were locked in their houses. For these people the connection with the post person in practical terms is their link with life. The so-called economic viability proposals are socially destructive and will create more isolation for elderly people. It might be said that this is not in the realm of reality but will our representatives in Europe not look rather pathetic when they say, having wound up the connections with people in remote areas, that they are looking for something which might assist them?
There is one final point I would like to make. I taught economics and commerce for some time, as the Minister knows. In terms of commerce; if one inherits a disposable asset there is a cowardly way out, that is to sell the asset as quickly as possible and retreat to the little that is left. In the case we are talking of management lacked courage in making their proposals in that they did not evaluate the potential of their asset. It is unacceptable that the proposals which have been suggested which, as I said, regard people as being a disposable part of the asset and something that could be got rid of, could be accepted as being interesting.
Let me say in conclusion that what we all want is to let the field clear, get the plan out of the way and for everybody involved, the community, the workers and management to come up with proposals for the development of what is our communications industry. We should not get ready to ditch the social aspect so that the little that is left and profitable can be sold on the market place speculatively to people who might be neither Irish nor concerned about a single citizen in this country.
The Labour Party believe that An Post can be an efficient and viable semi-State body but if this is to happen they must be allowed to diversify, to develop the post GIRO system which has been an international success and to provide a banking service for the community. The Government would be very shortsighted if they were to give the green light to a £20 million or £30 million redundancy package to get rid of perhaps 15,000 workers. It would be far better if this money was spent in developing the post GIRO service with the profits being used to restore An Post to financial health. This attack on our postal services follows the savage attacks on local and health services which have been a feature of the term of office of this Government and their predecessors.
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy, but the time available to him is well nigh exhausted and I would ask him to bring his speech to a close.
Let me say in conclusion that this plan is about jobs and human beings and the effect job losses will have on communities, both urban and rural. It is also about giving people an opportunity to have a say. I ask the Government to take the views of the people of the country and those who work in An Post, who are aware of the problems, into account.
The time has come to call another speaker.
I appeal to the Government to listen to what the people are saying and to scrap this plan.
The Deputy's time is exhausted.
They should give the unions and the people an opportunity to have an input into a viability plan for An Post.
I must call another speaker now.
A Cheann Comhairle, with your permission, and with the permission of the House, I would like to share my time with Deputies Michael Ahern, Wyse, Browne(Wexford) and Stafford.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank Deputy Currie for putting this motion before the House and I am delighted to accept the invitation to speak on it which he extended to Fianna Fáil backbenchers on RTE last Monday night. I thank him also for giving me and my colleagues the opportunity to say in public what we said when this viability plan was first published by An Post. Like Deputy O'Donoghue, I am glad that Fine Gael have at last woken up to the implications of the plan. However, I would have to say they were a little bit late because it is two months since the plan was first published. They suddenly seem to have found that there was a problem and we are now discussing the motion. Within two or three days of the plan being published, Fianna Fáil backbenchers were in contact with and in active discussions with the Minister. I am very pleased to put on record that the Minister responded very quickly to the concerns expressed by us as Fianna Fáil backbenchers. I congratulate the Minister and thank him for that. I congratulate him also on the immediate action taken on the proposals which were causing a great deal of concern, especially for rural areas, that is the proposal regarding roadside letter boxes and the possible closure of sub-post offices. The Minister went further and took action regarding the regarding proposals which he discussed with An Post and they have been withdrawn, temporarily at least until full discussions can take place.
The Minister also took action when the management of An Post withdrew from the conciliation and arbitration scheme. The Minister should be congratulated on all the negotiations he has conducted over the past number of months and for the way he has cleared the way for union-management meetings which are taking place and which I hope will bring about a change in the viability plan and ensure that An Post operate as a viable semi-State company.
I am very disappointed with the motion before the House and the fact that Fine Gael have not recognised the role the Minister has played and that they do not make any reference to the current talks to try to resolve the differences that exist between unions and management in An Post. At the very least they could have indicated their support for a non-con-frontational resolution to this matter. There are others, apart from Fine Gael, whose role has been less than honourable, in particular the management of An Post who foisted this plan on everybody without consultation and in the middle of what was a very sensitive period withdrew from the conciliation and arbitration scheme. I do not know what kind of management would take such action. I question whether they were trying to provoke the workers and consumers even further. Their motivation would have to be questioned and their judgement leaves a lot to be desired.
I have to comment also on the role of the communications workers union. They have not been totally blameless and they have tried to distort the issues involved. Some of their campaigning appears to be politically motivated rather than motivated by their concern for the possible damage to the fabric of rural life. If they are as concerned as we are on this side of the House about the fabric of rural life and the welfare of the local post workers and post offices which they have been making such a play about, perhaps they could come up with some proposals to cut down on the massive overtime bill in Sherriff Street sorting office. The sum involved is approximately £15 million and if that could be cut out there would be no need to be talking about roadside letter boxes. They have a role to play and I hope they will have a positive attitude during their talks with management.
I would like to reiterate that Fianna Fáil Deputies were the first to move on this issue and that the Minister took immediate action. Despite the efforts made to put the message across that this was a Fianna Fáil inspired plan, let me say it was never our plan, it still is not our plan, and as a Fianna Fáil backbenchers I hope it will never be part of a Government plan.
Absolved again. All is right.
The Progressive Democrats are fully committed to protecting and strengthening the social fabric of rural Ireland——
Wait for it.
——and we recognise in that context the vital importance of the local post office as both a source of State services and also a valuable meeting place in rural communities. In fact one of the primary objectives of the Progressive Democrats is to devolve greater power and responsibility to local communities so that local initiatives, enterprise and decision making can be properly tapped. It is in that context obviously that it is vital to ensure the survival of viable communities in every part of the country.
That is the essential background to the stand of the Progressive Democrats in relation to the viability plan drawn up by An Post's management. I fully sympathise with the financial dilemma faced by An Post, and in particular every party in this House must take note of the fact that the company would be insolvent in three years time if their present and projected rate of losses were to continue. It is vital therefore that An Post are restored to viability, and that must be done too without further demands being made on the hard-pressed taxpayer. There are always ways and means of achieving this objective and one of the regrettable features of An Post's plan was the manner of their initial announcement which smacked of being an imposition rather than the fruits of consultation.
As a Government party the Progressive Democrats are, of course, party to the National Economic and Social Council's review of the overall viability plan, and in particular its implications for the future of rural post offices and also the feasibility or otherwise of introducing roadside letter boxes in some areas. The bottom line now is that the entire viability plan is under review——
Is that so?
——and thankfully is the subject of negotiations and consultations between management and unions in the company.
The Deputy is wrong about that.
That is the proper way to proceed. We need an agreed and not an imposed plan to restore An Post to economic viability. I want to emphasise again that it should not be imposed on workers.
I am glad also that the NESC study of the An Post viability plan will also incorporate examination of possible alternative commercial activities for post offices which could help to restore many of them to economic viability and thereby improve the overall financial wellbeing of An Post. Clearly An Post face a difficult future as they grapple with measures to regain viability, but at the same time they must ensure that their plan does not cause damage to the fabric of Irish society and rural life in particular. The Progressive Democrats believe that every possible option must be examined in the overall review of the viability plan in talks between the management and unions. I believe there is a total commitment by both management and unions to bring about a successful end to the whole plan. These two objectives must be uppermost at all times. I hope the management and the unions talk well. I believe job reductions will be achieved on a voluntary basis as part of a positive development and this must augur well for the eventual resolution of this very serious and complex economic and social problem. I am convinced from my talks with both unions and management that there is a commitment which must be encouraged, especially by Members of this House, in order to bring about a successful conclusion to the negotiations.
I am glad of the opportunity to speak on this very important issue. When this plan was first published it was recognised by this party as being unacceptable. We were aware that it would cause great hardship and agony throughout the country and that the shedding of 1,500 jobs willy nilly was not acceptable. The closure of 500 sub-post offices and the erection of up to 200,000 post boxes was equally unacceptable. We also recognised that the regarding of many of the post offices mentioned was unsuitable in many places such as the town of Youghal which has a population of over 6,000 people.
The Minister in his wisdom also recognised these shortcomings. Having had discussions within the party and negotiations with the unions, he decided to initiate a study by the NESC. This decision has been rubbished by the Opposition as not being practical. I reject this. It is practical and it is being carried out in order to crystallise the impact of the proposed closure of sub-post offices and the erection of post boxes. It is important that the impact of these measures should be set out clearly for everybody to see and understand so that we will not be making decisions based on half truths and emotional statements.
It is also necessary to consider new sources of business and finance for An Post. Over the years expenditure has increased while revenue has not increased to the same extent. An Post need to generate more revenue to become viable.
The Minister has been instrumental in getting management and unions together in negotiation. This is the crucial element in sorting out the problem. It is only through negotiation that a sensible resolution of the problem can be found for the betterment of An Post.
It is particularly cynical that Fine Gael have brought forward this motion while the negotiations are in progress. It is purely an election gimmick and will be seen as such. At the end of the day the course of action decided upon by management and unions will ensure that An Post will be an efficient and effective organisation giving value for money and providing a social service. The leader of Fine Gael was a great supporter and preacher of efficiency, effectiveness and value for money but he seems to have changed tack during the past couple of weeks. I presume his new adviser has had some effect.
The 1984 Act provided for up to £70 million for An Post. I understand only £5 million was provided in 1984 and £4 million in 1986. An Post should have been established on a proper footing in those years. My party were not in Government at the time. Perhaps Members opposite will be able to explain why they did not provide the necessary funding when they set up An Post as a semi-State body.
We take it that Fianna Fáil have put nothing in since.
Deputy O'Sullivan rambled on last night about pension fund moneys and implied that these moneys which are held in trust by the Department of Finance should be used for revenue purposes. These are pension fund moneys. Where would the pensions come from in time?
Interest lost amounts to £54 million.
I would ask Deputy O'Sullivan not to make such preposterous suggestions.
I have here the report of the trustees.
Let the interruptions cease. The Deputy in possession, without interruption.
Another suggestion is that a subsidy should be given to An Post each year. This suggestion is fundamentally flawed because it is not a long term answer to the problem. At any time the Minister of the day could decide to withdraw the subsidy. The need is for a viable post office service able to pay its way. How is this to be achieved? The answer rests with management and unions and will emerge in negotiations between them.
Listening to speeches from the Opposition, one would get the impression that Fianna Fáil brought forward this so-called plan. It is necessary to spell out again that this is not so. It was made clear from day one. The course of action being taken by our Minister, Deputy Brennan, will bring forward a viable, efficient and successful post office service.
Sir Anthony Trollope was the inspector general who set up the post office service. I wonder if he would see much difference if he came back today.
The Deputy had better not quote Anthony Trollope in Bartlemy. He would see a big difference there.
The Bandon Road post office will not close down because it is viable.
Deputy O'Sullivan had a good hearing. Let him afford the same courtesy to the Deputy in possession.
It is for the local papers.
The post office service has not had sufficient infrastructure and it is necessary to provide it. How it is to be done is a problem. Funding is not likely to come from Government sources but I hope the EC will be able to provide the necessary capital funding to bring service to the requisite standard.
(Wexford): I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I also welcome Deputy Currie's new-found interest in An Post's services and viability plan. Little thought went into putting this plan together. It smacks of arrogance by management and a “get rid of workmen at all costs” attitude with no concern for the workers, their families, mortgages or whatever other payments they may have to make. I say from this side of the House that this country cannot afford to lose another 1,500 jobs.
I have had first hand experience of all this since the document was issued. The week after the document was issued the sub-post office in Enniscorthy was closed. We decided to take action. The full urban council with myself as chairman, and with Deputy Ivan Yates decided we would pay Mr. Hynes a visit in the GPO in Dublin. We marched in and pointed out to him the foolishness of the decision to close that sub-post office and we outlined all the reasons it should not be closed. We pointed out that it provided a service for over 3,000 customers and how ridiculous it was to take a decision to close a post office that served so many. We invited Mr. Hynes to come to Enniscorthy and see the situation for himself. Eventually he decided to come and as a result the following week that sub-post office was reopened.
I would like to say here tonight to the Minister and to Mr. Hynes and put on public record, that we do not intend to allow the sub-post office to close again. There is need for it despite the facts and figures management tried to put to us on that occasion. Some of the decisions and thoughts in this document are absolute lunacy. I have here also the document,Save the Postal Service from the unions involved and 14 or 15 snippets from newspapers, and the only people mentioned in the fight to save post offices are Fianna Fáil backbench TDs. Nowhere in that document, on the back page or in all the snippets, are the Labour Party, The Workers' Party or the Fine Gael Party mentioned. Headings are: “TDs Fight Post Office Closures”, “Rural Fianna Fáil TDs Express Concern at the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party”.
Good PR work.
(Wexford): It is welcome that we are now going to get support from the far side of the House to have these decisions rescinded.
Riding two horses.
(Wexford): I compliment the Minister, Deputy Brennan, on his work today. He has opened doors so management and workers will be able to have discussions, and the workers will have tough discussions with management. We found management quite difficult to deal with and fairly closed minded on what they intend. The whole problem started with their decision to dump 1,500 people on the dole queues and close 550 post offices without consultations or negotiations. As we approach the 21st century that should not be management's attitude.
Managements are particularly to blame because they have not diversified into a number of areas over the years. Extra business can be gained dealing with motor tax, driving licences, parking fines, driving test fees, ESB payments and many other areas, but it seems management had no interest in this. They felt the Governments of the day would subsidise them forever. We are all taxpayers and the workers in An Post are taxpayers, and taxpayers' money cannot continue forever to subsidise companies if they are making a loss.
I hope negotiation will continue. I have a letter here from Mr. David Beggs, whom I regard as a very reasonable man, thanking me and my colleagues in Enniscorthy Urban Council for arranging meetings on behalf of Enniscorthy postal workers with the Taoiseach when he was in Enniscorthy six weeks ago. That is the way forward, through discussions, negotiations and talks.
A number of people in the postal service, particularly postmen approaching retirement age, would accept voluntary redundancy or voluntary retirement. That should be considered. I welcome what the Minister said last night; that An Post management had informed him that any jobs to go would be on a voluntary basis. That is a very important concession. Whatever chance An Post management had of getting agreement, they now have none because of the arrogant attitude they adopted over the past two months.
The Minister, Deputy Brennan, inherited this problem on his first or second day in office.
From whom?
(Interruptions.)
(Wexford): He has done a very good job on behalf of the Government, the workers and the unions generally.
Not from this side of the House.
(Wexford): I have every faith that Deputy Brennan, Minister for Communications, will play a key role in ensuring this problem is resolved.
Last night the Minister stated that An Post decided to have negotiations regarding the downgrading of post offices. Again let me point out the ridiculous situation under which management are trying to operate. They have operated the post office in Enniscorthy, spent massive amounts on computerisation, and wages and salaries for Dún Laoghaire, Enniscorthy, Gorey and Wexford are paid from there. The records of TV licences for the entire County Wexford are on computer.
The ESB chose Enniscorthy for their south-east headquarters and the DVO chose it for their regional office. The management in the green document propose Wexford town for a main post office and that Enniscorthy be downgraded. Is this not false economy, a waste of taxpayers' money and public funds and another example of crazy decisions by An Post management? The Minister should have a serious talk with them and tell them he is not prepared to take the type of decisions they are considering or tolerate this waste of money. He must ensure that at the end of the day through conciliation talks and negotiations an agreeable solution is found. It is important also at the end of the day that An Post workers be happy with any decisions arrived at.
As I said, I welcome the support Fianna Fáil backbenchers are now getting from the far side of the House. It is two months late but support at any time is very welcome I have complete faith in the Minister's ability to resolve this problem——
Surely that is a vote for the motion.
(Wexford):—— in the interests of An Post workers in particular.
Sir, with the permission of the House I propose to share my time with Deputies Byrne, Sherlock and Rabbitte.
Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
In supporting Deputy Currie's motion I seek to move my amendment on the Order Paper.
The Deputy may speak to the amendment. We have one amendment before the House in the name of An tAire. You certainly may address your amendment but you may not move it.
The postal service is a facility we have all tended to take for granted. We all assume that, irrespective of the weather, the postman and postwoman will be there every morning five days a week, all year round, in good weather and bad, to deliver the mail, but the postal service has meant far more to people especially in rural Ireland, than simply a facility for collecting and delivering letters. For many—particularly those living alone or in isolated areas — it has been the only link with the outside world. It has been an important part of the social infrastructure of this country — especially as we have, by comparison with most other European countries, fewer telephones per head of the population.
It is now clear that our postal service as we have known it is under great threat. If Oscar Wilde's definition of a cynic is accurate — one who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing — then those who drew up this viability plan and the Government which are giving it such support, irrespective of what is being said from the back benches here today, are guilty of very great cynicism indeed. It is very easy for the Government or An Post management to say that postal deliveries to the door cost so much, and must therefore be dropped from 200,000 homes. Who assesses the value of such services to the community? Who counts the costs of withdrawing them? It is all very well to say that shedding 1,500 jobs will save so much, but who counts the social costs to the workers and their families of losing their jobs.
Postal communications cannot be viewed as a simple commercial enterprise — it is not like selling beans. The social dimension must be a crucial factor in any decisions about the future of the service taken either by the Government or the management of An Post. Any other approach may save some money for the Government, but it will inflict enormous damages on the social infrastructure of this country.
At a time when unemployment is at such an appalling level, at almost 260,000 and believed by many to be heading for 300,000 it is particularly shocking that the Government should be seeking to shed another 1,500 jobs in the public sector. The Minister said last night that there will be no compulsory redundancies, but whether they are achieved voluntarily or by compulsion, the fact remains that if the Government have their way, 1,500 more people will be without jobs and the vast majority of them will have little prospect of getting any new employment: 1,500 more people on the dole queues which are already costing this country more than £2 billions per year in terms of social welfare payments and tax and PRSI foregone. It is my calculation, on the best advice available to me, that the maximum number of voluntary departures from An Post will be in the region of 500. The plan stands or falls on shedding 1,500 jobs. Its centre plank is cutting back on costs by reducing its single biggest cost item, wages. If the Minister assures us that there will be only voluntary redundancies, then he should take the next step and concede that the plan, as presently constituted, has no validity whatsoever. The negotiations he talks about should not be between management and the union at conciliation and arbitration or anywhere, on a plan that has no validity or basis at this stage but it should be on a tripartite basis involving management, union and Government dealing with the comprehensive rebuilding of An Post with capital backing and a greater expanded role for An Post. If the Minister makes the play as he did here last night, that there will be no compulsion in job shedding, and on the basis that 1,500 jobs cannot be shed on a voluntary basis — there can be no doubt about that — then the Minister should admit that the plan has not validity, take the next step and accept the motion that has been tabled here in the name of Deputy Currie and supported by the other parties in Opposition.
I cannot accept the Minister's two-handed reel play with regard to this issue. On the one hand he has fed the line to his backbenchers here in the Chamber to attack this plan and management in the way they have gone about it. On the other hand he says there will be no compulsion. Mr. Hynes and the board of An Post when they met with The Workers' Party left us in no doubt as they left the unions and everyone else concerned in no doubt, that he is ridding the company of 1,500 jobs whether they like it or not, whether the unions will take it or not or whether the Government want it. That is the job they are about. If the Minister does not agree with that, then let us tear up this plan tonight, accept what is being proposed by Fine Gael and supported by all other Members in the House and it would appear, also supported by every back bencher who has spoken on the Minister's behalf and apparently in his cause. He cannot play it both ways and the Minister is attempting to do so but it will not be tolerated.
The shedding of 1,500 jobs is taking place within six months of the signing with great fanfare of theProgramme for Economic and Social Progress which was supposed to have had a key objective not just a substantial increase in employment, but also higher standards of living and improved social services for all. The programme also spoke of the Government's commitment to the maintenance of a viable and profitable commercial semi-State sector. The Irish Sugar Company workers, who made such a sacrifice to put that company into profitability over the past five years, have found out just what that means, as the Government rushed to privatise the company earlier this year. The legislation to privatise Irish Life is already in place and the B & I are also now in the sights of this Minister. Indeed, with the exception of his Progressive Democrat colleagues, there is probably no other Cabinet member who has so repeatedly displayed his undisguised hostility to the public sector. It may well be part of the Minister's long term strategy to secure the run down of An Post to such an extent that it will lead to a demand for privatisation in time. If this is his objective, he should say so. If not, he should start putting some effort into helping An Post to overcome their current difficulties and to establish themselves on a sound basis.
When the Postal and Telecommunications Services Bill was going through the Dáil in 1982, many expressed the hope that freeing both An Post and Telecom Éireann from the dead hand of Civil Service control would allow both concerns to be well run and profitable semi-State companies within a brief period. While Telecom has been largely a success — although with a considerable cost in terms of job reductions also — An Post has continued to face serious problems, and everyone, particularly the workers and their unions, recognise the need to change and adapt.
An Post have had to face particular problems over the past decade. The growth in electronic mail — FAX and other systems — has clearly hit their business as has the growth in courier services, many of whom are shamelessly exploiting young people and paying little better than slave wages. When real plans are put in place with real commitment from An Post they have delivered with their workers. The parcel service system now operating at the Naas Road is exemplary in coming into profitability within a short period of being established. The courier service would make far more profit for An Post if it was allowed to expand. Why will it not expand? They will not expand because An Post and their management with the backing of the Minister are in the business of shedding jobs and of not recruiting. They would expand and they would meet and take on the cowboy courier service if they could recruit extra workers but they are not allowed to do this at present.
However, the major cause of the problems has been the failure of the Government to ensure that An Post has the capital necessary to expand, develop and modernise. The single problem facing An Post since 1983 and the single problem today is the failure of this Minister and successive Ministers to enable An Post capitalise sufficiently to modernise and develop. The result of this has been a run down in the fleet of vehicles, deteriorating buildings and an inability to introduce new and modern business systems. Section 29 of the Postal and Telecommunications Act allowed the Minister to make available a sum not exceeding £50 million for capital works. My understanding is that very little of this has been provided to date.
Last night the Minister wondered at our call in our amendment for the Government to make a capital commitment. The Workers' Party oppose — and we want to make this point very clear — the concept of shedding jobs for the sake of balancing books. If jobs are to be shed, then workers demand and should expect aquid pro quo, not a repeat of the slaughter of jobs for nothing as was visited on An Post in 1988. Let us remember that 1,100 jobs were forfeited by the workers to managements on the basis that things would be improved, and nothing improved for a day.
The re-establishment of An Post and its development must come not just from costly borrowing from banks as the Minister demands but mainly in the short and medium-term from Government using taxpayers resources. Too many State and semi-State organisations have creaked and groaned from year to year under excruciating bank interest rates. No worker should ever be prepared to forfeit a job on the simply promise of viability; book balancing always spells one message for the worker, redundancy and the dole queue. This plan offers nothing for the future expansion of An Post without ministerial and Government backing. In short The Workers' Party — and I am glad to see the workers and the unions accept this — reject the Minister's bottom line position that there should be no State subsidy.
When the Bill was going through the Dáil the question of the capital to be made available to An Post received quite an amount of attention. Speaking on our party's behalf Deputy De Rossa said in column No. 1852 of the Official Report of 16 June 1983:
There is a great need for capital investment and because £50 million will not be sufficient An Bord Poist will have to go to the banks and borrow at inflated interest rates. That will cause problems. It should be remembered that there are many State companies in serious trouble because of the amount of interest they have to pay to private banking institutions. I appeal to the Minister to consider raising the £50 million to £100 million.
Deputy Leyden, now a Minister of State in the Government, took up that point later in the debate and argued that it was necessary for the Minister to allocate at least £75 million for investment in buildings and other capital works. What has happened to that commitment and demanded by a Deputy who is now a member of the present Government?
Because we consider that adequate capital for An Post is crucial to their future success, we tabled our amendment which, I understand, has now been accepted by Fine Gael. As long as capital is provided, I am sure that both management and workers can co-operate in improving services to the public without virtually destroying the postal service which the viability plan, in its present form, would certainly do. No one can deny that there is room for improvement. Some surveys have suggested that the postal service here is among the most expensive and the slowest in Europe. This is not in anyone's interest.
If they are to thrive, An Post must also expand beyond their core postal activities. Why have successive Governments refused to allow An Post to expand into the banking area? This is another acid test for the Minister and the Government. They say they are in favour of the expansion and viability of An Post but if this is true, then they should answer a simple question here tonight or whenever the opportunity presents itself: when will they allow An Post to enter the banking arena and engage in serious competition with banking interests? Why is it possible for people to walk into any bank in the country and pay an ESB bill but impossible to do so in any post office? Why is it that the only things a person can buy in most post offices are stamps, lotto tickets and licences? Why has no attempt been made to encourage post offices to sell postcards, birthday cards and other stationery products? These would be natural complementary activities. Why is it possible for people in the UK to get driving licences, road tax discs, passports and other official documents through their post offices, when none of these is available in post offices in Ireland?
Since this controversy blew up at the beginning of the year, I have been in contact with many postal workers, both personally and in correspondence. I have been impressed with their commitment not just to preserving their jobs but to preserving the quality of our postal services. I want to congratulate them on the way they have organised themselves to resist this plan. There was no question of simply lying down and accepting the plan. They fought back and come up with imaginative and progressive ideas of their own for the expansion and development of the postal services. All those who want to see our postal services preserved and developed owe these workers and the Communications Union of Ireland a debt of gratitude today.
In speaking in this debate tonight, I want to take my cue from the community in the small village of Bartlemy. A Deputy who spoke a short while ago in this House visited that community and committed himself wholeheartedly to supporting the people in that rural area of County Cork. Rural areas have already suffered as a result of the closure of small schools and Garda stations and doctors panels being sucked into larger units. An attack is now being made on post offices. This will tear the heart out of rural communities. Small post offices are of great importance to the less well off, the unemployed, and the elderly. It has been proposed by the EC that Structural Funds should be used to develop rural areas through a rural development programme. However, we now find that our Government are undermining EC policy on the issue of rural development.
If the Government do not support the motion before the House tonight, the viability plan put forward by An Post will be put into operation. The abolition of second deliveries will lead to a loss of jobs; I have investigated this issue in my town of Mallow. Second deliveries will not be made in towns and there is no guarantee that letters will be delivered the day after they were posted to areas outside towns. This is what is proposed in the plan. Larger companies will be less likely to set up in areas where there is a poor postal service. In addition, small and medium sized enterprises will be less likely to flourish in these areas.
I have read a statement made recently by the chief executive officer of An Post. This gives us a fair idea of the thinking of the bureaucrats who put forward this plan which will decimate rural Ireland. He said that if a person builds a house 25 metres from a road the postman should not have to travel this extra distance when postmen in Dublin can drop letters in the door. This gives us an indication of the thinking behind this viability plan. These bureaucrats are basically saying rural Ireland should be forgotten and they will concentrate on Dublin. Consequently, the plan they have proposed must be rejected.
It has also been stated that while there are delivery problems elsewhere, letters could be delivered in Dublin for as little as 16p. These problems are being experienced by people in rural areas who have made sacrifices down the years and it is now proposed that postal services should be taken from them. These services will not be taken away if all parties vote in favour of this motion and if the Government are serious about maintaining a viable rural community. I concur with the points made by my colleague Deputy McCartan on the need for support for this motion. If Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats do not vote in favour of this motion tonight, they cannot go out to the people and say they support them on this issue. If they vote against this motion they will once again be demonstrating the ambivalence and ambiguity they have shown down the years.
As my time is limited, I will confine my remarks to two important areas. I want to deal first with the question of whether we need to recruit people with a record of using boot boy managerial tactics to sort out companies. It is most reprehensible that Governments, including this Coalition Government, should place our commercial semi-State companies in the hands of roving guns for hire like chief executives, especially when one looks at the damages they have caused the companies to which they were appointed.
The Deputy will appreciate that so far as people who are under attack are not here to defend themselves, there is a tradition that they——
Shall not be named.
There is only one chief executive. Please use a certain sensitivity in that regard.
I am deeply sensitive, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I did not name anyone and I have no intention of naming anyone. However, the previous Fianna Fáil speaker named someone, which I am not going to do. I should like to complete my few sentences uninterrupted.
The Chair will interrupt when it is appropriate.
I did not hear you interrupt the Fianna Fáil speaker who named someone.
I could not interrupt as I was not here.
Have Dublin Bus been able to provide a cheaper or more efficient bus service, have the huge number of passengers who had abandoned the service now returned to it or have they been able to make more profits since the former chief executive of An Post was appointed as managing director of that company? The answer is no. One cannot help thinking about the huge number of men and women who were sacrificed and allowed to end upon the dole queues and wondering if An Post are destined to go down the same road. Why was one of the first acts of the new chief executive of An Post and act of incitement by choosing to withdraw from the tried and tested conciliation and arbitration scheme? What sort of managerial skills provoke industrial confrontation and unrest? I say to the chief executive that this is the wrong road to take in trying to solve some of the many problems of An Post.
Everybody is aware of the financial problems of An Post. One only has to look at the chairman's statement in the 1990 annual report to learn of these problems. The communications workers know the financial difficulties of An Post as do the trade union officials. No management can afford to ignore the contributions trade unions can make in working with management to solve such problems. The old management tactic is being used by An Post, that of provocation, throwing in the thrash can the conciliation and arbitration scheme that came into existence through the struggle of trade unions and management down the years. That can have no role in modern Irish industrial practices.
I would like to comment briefly on sub-post offices, particularly in Dublin. Many of these offices share premises with local hardware shops stinking of paraffin oil while others operate from the parlours of Georgian houses, complete with bay windows, garage-like premises and buildings which look as if they should be on the dangerous buildings list. There should be an improvement in the type and standard of sub-post offices. I am tired of seeing elderly people queueing on the pavements in inclement weather waiting to be served in these sub-post offices. Very often there is not even a chair, a writing desk or any facility for customers to do their business in any degree of comfort or privacy. If we are serious in our demands that An Post provide a wider range of service, including banking services, consideration must be given to our sub-posts offices.
Why are An Post not building their own post offices like the excellent ones in Rathmines, Andrew Street or South Anne Street where customers can do their business in comfort? Why, for example, is the Crumlin sub-post office about 50 yards from the Crumlin sorting office? Why do An Post have no integrated post office system? Why, for example, has the Tallaght Town Centre no district integrated post office, while Dún Laoghaire, Blackrock and Ballsbridge have? Among the many questions to be addressed by the management of An Post, including coming up with a viability programme, is the structure and nature of the sub-post office system with a view to upgrading it to an acceptable, modern 20th century standard. That must be done if we are serious about competing with the banks, credit unions and building societies.
Can you tell me, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, how much time is available to me?
The Deputy should conclude before 8.09 p.m.
We were all awakened this morning to be assured that the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications had told the House, the nation and the postal workers two things: first, that this Government would allow no unwarranted dismantling of the postal service and, second, that any redundancies would be on a voluntary basis. Those two statements were deliberately calculated in view of the present electoral climate and the damage that Government support for this disastrous policy by An Post is having on Fianna Fáil candidates throughout the country.
This Minister, Deputy Brennan, is the third Progressive Democrat Minister at the Cabinet table. He is a firm believer in privatisation, as anybody who looks at his record will know, whether with regard to B & I, his attempts to support Ryanair or indeed, the range of State companies now in his portfolio. His solution is privatisation but, of course, you cannot tell that to the Fianna Fáil voter at grassroot level because that would mean another 1,500 jobs in An Post going the way of so many jobs in the Irish Sugar Company, B & I and so on.
The Minister deserves no credit for the statement on voluntary redundancies. The fact that he assures the House that An Post have told him they will try to effect any jobs losses on a voluntary basis is due entirely to the trade union involved. There are two types of trade union leaders, those who are all wind and bombast and whose reward is to be photographed with the Taoiseach or Ministers of the day and, if they are lucky, end up getting an appointment to the Seanad; the other is the kind of trade union leadership who mean what they say, who analyse the problems and having done so stand firm by their commitment. The leadership of the Communications Workers' Union made it very clear to their members in public demonstrations around the country that they would not accept job losses except on a voluntary basis, if at all. That is why An Post can now assure the Minister that redundancies will be only on a voluntary basis, not because of any intervention on the part of the Minister or the Government. As soon as 28 June rolls around the essence of this programme will be supported by the present Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, and that is a fact of life.
We have to ask why were An Post allowed to get into the sorry state they are in now. Why, for example, when both An Post and An Bord Telecom were taken from under the umbrella of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs at the time do we have on the one hand a very successful, modern, highly technical company as An Bord Telecom with capacity for diversification, expansion and employment in the economy and on the other hand the run down decrepit company the management of An Post allowed that company to get into?
The former management of An Post have a great deal to answer for, and indeed, the former chairman of An Post has presumably learned the lesson that running a commercial enterprises like this is not as simple as selling apples and oranges. Consequently, the company are in a mess, greatly exacerbated by the Government. They have deliberately run down An Post over the years, trying to balance their commitment to feather bedding, as they did deliberately in the time of the other Progressive Democrat member, former Minister Martin O'Donoghue, with their objectives that we want lean commercial companies that are viable in the marketplace.
An Post are totally under-capitalised. For example, their capacity to raise money from small savers in terms of making a contribution to the domestic sourcing of our national debt has been completely ignored. It appears they have gone out of their way to contrive not to raise as much money from small savers as they might. That was a cheap sources of funding to support the national debt but it is another aspect that has been allowed to run down completely. It is hypocritical to compare this to the Government's commitment in theProgramme for Economic and Social Progress to a viable, thriving commercial State sector. How can you have a viable, thriving State sector when, one after the other, these companies are being knocked off? It is not as if we had alternatives in the private sector because jobs are not being created in the private sector. This House has at last agreed that there is an unemployment crisis, but the answer of the Government, far from improving the prospects of the commercial State sector, is to make another 1,500 people redundant, if they can.
In conclusion, I gave give very little credence to the Minister's response last night. If this battle is to be won it will be won by the workers in An Post and by the people and local communities who are threatened in this case. With 250,000 people unemployed, we cannot afford to wantonly allow another 1,500 people and the postal service to be undermined. It is a matter for management to manage the postal service back to health, to diversify and open up new activities where necessary, accept the facts of modern life — that electronic mail is on the way and so on, but this is not the way to do it.
The Minister has appointed NESC-recommended consultants to carefully evaluate the current situation in An Post. It is said that in Ireland everybody knows everybody else. The postman is like the central cog, in that they play an important role in the life of every village, town and city. Postmen travel the highways and byways of the country not only delivering mail but also sharing a friendly, familiar face and kind word. That, in itself, is a social service. That is one of the reasons that myself and my fellow backbenchers in the Fianna Fáil Party oppose the viability plan proposed by the management of An Post and certainly not backed or stood behind by the present Minister.
I have always advocated that sub-post offices should be extended and used by the community for paying household bills such as gas, electricity, fuel, and so on. In fact, in the past few years I have regularly suggested on Dublin City Council that rent payments should be paid in local sub-post offices. That would facilitate all residents, particularly senior citizens and parents who already collect their pensions, children's allowances and so on from post offices. Those are only a few suggestions for the use of sub-post offices, but there are many more — the list is endless.
The current debate about An Post may have a good effect. The workers in An Post do not want to inflict any hardship or inconvenience on the public. They are looking for a fully negotiated and consultative agreement. Negotiations are under way at the moment. A non-confrontational approach is needed. It is to be hoped that a solution that is acceptable to all concerned will be found. The winners, of course, will be all three groups — the workers, An Post and the general public. By the end of 1992——
On a point of order, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I ask why we are here if the Government support the motion of Fine Gael and The Workers' Party amendment.
Deputy Pat Rabbitte——
The Progressive Democrats might vote against them.
Deputy Rabbitte, I am sure you realise that, wittingly or unwittingly, you are being disorderly and taking up Deputy Stafford's time, which is already limited.
By the end of 1992 An Post will have incurred a loss of £31 million. We all realise that corrective action is essential. The viability plan is only one proposal. It is a series of various different proposals put forward for discussion and consideration. The aim is that An Post will at one stage not need a subsidy, in other words, that it will break even, as they did, and quite well, in 1987 and 1988.
I am now urging the unions to prepare I am now urging the unions to prepare and present an alternative to this plan so that all sides can have their say and everyone will know and discuss the pluses and minuses of the various proposals.
This motion has been moved by the Fine Gael Party at this particular time, a few weeks before the local elections, for cheap political gain. There is no doubt in my mind that the motion is completely political. If there were anything in the proposal that might solve the particular problem then one could say that Fine Gael were doing a good thing for the country, but there is not. Fine Gael are using the motion for purely political reasons. The motion contains not one constructive proposal. I have no doubt that in the next few weeks when I am out canvassing the people out there will know exactly what is going on. My view and I certainly hope it is the Government's, is that any reduction in employment should be made on a voluntary basis. We do not want anything to destroy or take An Post apart. The Government motion will be voted on in the House tonight. I shall be glad to vote along with the Minister, knowing full well that he will do what is necessary to help bring An Post around and look after the employment of the large number of people in the organisation.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Kenny and our spokesperson, Deputy Currie.
I register my complete disapproval of the plan of An Post, supported by the Minister and the Government, to close down 500 rural post offices. It will have a devastating effect on the constituency I represent, a border constituency. That will be the last straw for towns such as Belturbet, Blacklion and Swanlinbar that have been earmarked for post office closure. Those communities have fought gallantly to survive, despite the cross-Border trading that has been encouraged there by the Government in various tax proposals. Each backbench troubadour from the Government side, has sung the same song about value for money. Can the Minister show the House better value for money than the average £50 a week, £2,500 per annum, paid to post masters of rural post offices? Is there better value for money in any organisation or business than the service provided by those people? No, there is not. The reason for the plan is cutback. The soft option is rural Ireland where the votes are scarce and there are not the people to oppose the measure.
I call on all fairminded people, whether they be rural or urban, not to allow the Government to pursue this unfair plan, which cannot be allowed in any democracy. Rural Ireland is entitled to a service in the same way as Dublin 4 or other urban areas. I ask the Minister to rethink the plan and give the people of rural Ireland a chance to survive.
This measure is both a recipe for social tragedy and an opportunity and challenge to revolutionise a service that has been on a downward spiral for a considerable time. The Minister, Deputy Brennan's roots are set deep in the province of Connacht and I have no doubt that as an astute political figure, he has no intention of presiding over the decimation of rural Ireland or indeed, the crucifixion of a social service that has long been in operation.
Certainly work practice has to change and Government support must be available for that. An Post can be moved into the 21st century by providing a fast, safe, efficient and confidential service — otherwise people would not use it — but that cannot be done by closing down post offices, by regarding other post offices, by making redundancies and by using rural post boxes to the extent mentioned.
The proposed closures will not save money. They will further add to the loss of morale within the service and will continue the decline of the service.
I ask the Minister, are we in rural Ireland to have the friendly post person's step become as scarce and as unique as the corncrake? Are we being sent back to the days of carrier pigeons? I call on Fianna Fáil Deputies, whom I have heard at public meetings, county council meetings and every other kind of meeting swear their fidelity to the House and to a rejection of this plan, to walk through lobbies this evening in accordance with their words of courage on public platforms. Let the Minister, Deputy Brennan, stand up at the Cabinet table and thump the table if he has to stop the plan going through. Instead, let him move on to strand two, move into the 21st century, and give An Post Government backing to provide a fast, safe, efficient and confidential service. Then he can make his bid for leadership in time to come.
This has been an interesting and useful debate. I wish to thank my Fine Gael colleagues, Deputies Flanagan, Bradford, Hogan, Browne, Creed, Boylan and Kenny for their valuable contributions. I wish also to thank those Labour and Workers' Party Deputies who spoke in support of the motion. I am accepting The Workers' Party amendment.
I would also like to thank those members of the trade union movement who have provided information to members of all parties to enable us to make up our minds on this issue and to congratulate them on the dignified and responsible way in which they have campaigned on this matter.
May I add that I regret that An Post felt it necessary to place an advertisement in today's press which I believe was petty and insensitive as well as misrepresenting the position. They clearly were not listening either to the Minister or myself when we emphasised the necessity for sensitivity and goodwill between management and unions.
I thank also the Minister and the other Fianna Fáil members who spoke. I also thank the lone Progressive Democrats Deputy, Deputy Wyse, who spoke on the motion too. I listened with great interest to all of them. In my opening speech I said there was an issue of credibility involved in that many Fianna Fáil Deputies had opposed proposals in the viability plan in the most trenchant terms at local meetings, at council meetings and in the local press.
I said "now is the testing time for their sincerity" and I have been proved right. Deputy John O'Donoghue told us he was opposed to the proposals and remained so. He accused Fine Gael of playing politics and alleged that "not a whimper was heard from Fine Gael until it got near the local elections". Deputy Dempsey made the same allegation this evening.
If Deputy O'Donoghue's credibility is to be judged on the basis of his statements in this regard then I am sorry to say that little confidence can be reposed in him. The fact is that the viability plan was published on 7 February and that very same day by way of Private Notice Question I, and Deputies McCartan and O'Sullivan raised it in the Dáil and objected in the strongest terms to the ignoring of what I called "the human face" of An Post. Deputy Dempsey said this evening that Fianna Fáil backbenchers were the first to protest within two or three days. If so, it was two or three days too late. We were in first. Some reference was made to the lateness of putting down a motion on this matter, but as early as 19 February I tabled a motion signed by all 55 members of the Fine Gael Party. It was the first motion to appear on the Order Paper. So much for Deputy Dempsey's veracity and credibility. Deputy O'Donoghue went on to allege that the demonstration on television of how vulnerable the post boxes were to crime and vandalism was an incitement to crime on the part of Deputy Currie.
If I incited to crime, so also did responsible members of the Communications Workers' Union who co-operated with me in a responsible and educative exercise. If they do not mind the allegation, neither do I. I am used to it. The last person who accused me of inciting to crime wore a dog collar and had the first name of "Ian", so I do not mind.
Deputy Hillery made a more temperate contribution in which he spelled out in realistic terms the financial crisis facing An Post. He pointed out, as the Minister did earlier, that:
An Post lost £3.6 million in 1989 and almost £10 million last year after modest profits in 1987 and 1988. The Company's budget shows a loss of up to £7 million for this year and £14 million for 1992. Unless remedial measures are taken An Post's accumulated losses by end 1992 will be £31 million.
Deputy Hillery prompted again in my mind, the question I had asked the Dáil the very day the viability plan was published——
"How have things been allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that the picture now being painted is of a service in financial crisis, amounting almost to a doomsday situation".
Maybe Deputy Hillery as a representative of that section of Fianna Fáil which would pride itself on its commitment to "sound financial management" should ponder on the fact that An Post was in profit until his party took over.
How have things been allowed to go so disastrously wrong under their stewardship? Deputy Stafford was the last speaker to contribute before me. I wondered about him. Others wondered about him and about what side of the motion he was on. He reminded me of someone or something. I could not remember who or what, until Deputy Kenny reminded me. He reminded me of the corncrake. I could hear him, but I was not sure in what field he was.
(Interruptions.)
I am not sure he knew which field he was in.
I am very sure of where I am.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister made a more surprising speech, signifying nothing and not even full of sound and fury. I have given some thought to this because, as the Minister knows, I have considerable respect for his abilities — a man usually worthy of testing one's steel against. I have come to the conclusion that the "nothingness" in the speech was deliberate.
The Minister wants as little as possible on the record because he knows already what he intends to do, that is when the local government elections are out of the way. He does not want any quotable quotes on the record which might come back to haunt him when he announces his intention of implementing unpopular decisions after the elections.
However, there is one matter on which the Minister was less controversial than he intended and one matter on which he was more controversial than he intended.
He told us with a great show of solemnity how glad he was to be able to tell the House:
"That An Post have now informed me that it is their clear objective that job reductions will be of a voluntary nature".
So what? He told us that the very first day the viability plan was discussed in this House and Deputy O'Sullivan pointed out to him that An Post were unable to do otherwise because their workers are protected under the provisions of the 1983 Act. Then, the Minister came out with the sentence which deserves to be hung around his neck for ever:—
"I can assure the House that there is no question of the Government agreeing to the unwarranted dismantling of the postal network".
There it is — the "unwarranted dismantling" of the postal network. He does not give us an assurance that the postal network will not be dismantled — only that there will be no unwarranted dismantling. What dismantling of the postal system will be warranted?
Will it be warranted to close down hundreds of post offices, to make redundant, hundreds or thousands of workers, to stop doorstep delivery except in the most highly populated areas, or to take away entirely the human face of An Post?
I demand on behalf of this House and I would be right in demanding on behalf of all of this House that the Minister give an assurance that there will not be in any circumstances any dismantling of the postal network. I hope the Minister will stand up now and give that assurance. At the very least the Minister should signify to me and to the House that he withdraws the word "unwarranted" because that is specious. The Minister's refusal to do so speaks for itself. We now know what to expect for the future.
My time is almost up. I end as I began. This is the moment of truth for those Fianna Fáil backbenchers and the Progressive Democrats who have told us, and who told their constituents about their concern and about their opposition, who went on local radio, appeared in the local press and appeared in local council meetings saying that they would not tolerate these proposals of An Post. This is the moment of truth for them. We will see in a few minutes time how strongly held are the expressed convictions of the Fianna Fáil backbenchers who so vehemently opposed these proposals.
I conclude in the immortal words of the late Lyndon B. Johnston —"It is time to pee or get off the pot."
(Interruptions.)
The Chair takes it that Deputy Currie's last sentence was not directed at the Chair.
(Interruptions.)
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 63.
Tá
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P. J.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, Pat.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Gallagher and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Boylan.
Amendment declared carried.
Amendment No. 1 in the names of Deputy McCartan and others cannot now be moved.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to".
The Dáil divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 63.
Tá
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P. J.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl.
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, Pat.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Gallagher and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Boylan.
Question declared carried.